David B 1812

Some very nice stuff, Will. You definitely don't find VC - related items like this every day. Are we permitted to know how / where you 'acquired' these items. Naturally, I will understand if you would prefer not to say. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mervyn wrote: "Will - this posting is very much appreciated. With your permission I will copy-it and include with the Helmet when it is awarded." My question: What is "the Helmet" when it is awarded, please? Thank you

Sorry GAVIN, my apologies - just looked at the copy of the advert of the fellow selling one of these badges, and I see that he was asking US$800 and not R800, as I wrote in my reply, above. This is over R7,200 at today's rates - which compared to the sale earlier this year, of R1,006 is probably asking far too much, I think. (?) Unless you are an American with very deep pockets who REALLY wants it...... =================================================================

S.A.A.F. Navigator / Air Gunner Brevet Badge 1937 Thanks, Gavin for your reply. Yes that is exactly what it is. And I have one. Please go to the Members Image Gallery (page one: Bennett Medal Album - should probably now say Medals and Badges) and you will see it illustrated there, in a photo. I saw an internet site last year selling one for R800 and claiming that there were only three in existence............???? I don't know about that. Unless these same three are changing hands often, between the R800 seller, and Kaplan's badge, and the one which sold recently BELOW, for over R1000 and my badge (which came to me with the medals of an ex S.A.A.F. man who had served from WWII, through to the 1970s............ and why would he have a copy / forgery of the badge, It was with his personal stuff, and he was not even a collector..... in fact you can see his medals illustrated in my Album, and in my separate, second DOCUMENTS Album, you can see his photos.......... he was F/Sgt E.F. Williamson............). And I bought and have owned Williamson's medals, badges, photos and many other personal things, which I bought from his family, in 1997. Anyway, with my badge, and the few others around, I think that it is obvious that there are not just THREE of them.............. there surely must be others, BUT you do not see it every day, and so I think your comment that they are "relatively rare" is probably true. Mine is also undamaged, still having the two rear lugs, complete, and intact. But thanks for your interest and reply, Gavin. If you hear anything more, please let me know. Here is the "Bid or Buy" result for the badge recently sold for R1,006................... ======================================================================= Winning Bidders: Page views: 69 | Buyers: 1 R1,006.00, on 30 Jan 07:12, by sabrigade (1147 ) If you are a winning bidderComplete Your Purchase Runners-up: R1,001.00 on 30 Jan 05:39, by anzac (445 ) R550.00 on 24 Jan 12:54, by the good dudes (661 ) bidorbuy ID: 18656318 NO. 4439) S.A.A.F. NAVIGATOR/AIRGUNNER BREVET BADGE. WORN 1937 IN BRASS WITH 2 STUDS. RARE!!! R1,006.00 Winning Bid: R1,006.00 Min. Bid Increment: R5.00 Closed: 30 Jan 21:01:25 Item Condition: Secondhand ==================================================================================

ARCTIC STAR - ORDER for WEAR, in WWII Stars In response to an earlier question by a member (above) I found this on another website. Of course I cannot guarantee that it is correct, but I must presume that it is: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Have had a reply from the MOD Medal office and the official word order is as said by Worcester Medals Thank you for your email. The order of wearing the Stars is as follows: • 1939-45 Star • Atlantic Star • Arctic Star • Air Crew Europe Star • Africa Star • Pacific Star • Burma Star • Italy Star • France and Germany Star • Defence Medal • War Medal 1939-45 Kind Regards MOD Medals Office =================================================================

This is actually old news, and I am surprised that some of you chaps had not heard about this much earlier - it was first OFFICIALLY announced by the British Prime Minister as long ago as 19 December 2012, and later, confirmed, with the full details, by the Minister of State for Defence on 26 February 2012. Of course, the actual idea for the Star and the Clasp was mooted quite a long time ago. I have already got the application form to Dr. Edwina Ward (the nearest living relative) for her to apply for the BOMBER COMMAND CLASP for Major Edwin Swales, VC, DFC, SAAF, ex RAF 582 Pathfinder Squadron - so that it can be added to his 1939-1945 Star. Note: it will NOT be added to either the Air Crew Europe, nor the F & G Star. Qualification is 60 days, or a completed tour of operations on a Bomber Commend operational unit, and who flew at least one operational sortie on a Bomber Command operational unit between 3.09.1939 and 8.05.1945. There are other criteria for award, if time was shorter than required, for example, being wounded, POW, etc. Major Edwin Swales' medal group is supposed to be held at the National Military History Museum in Saxonwold, Johannesburg. The original medals and VC and DFC are (or should be) in "safe custody" and copies are on display. At least I hope so, and that they have not been subject to some 'affirmative shopping'......... As far as the ARCTIC STAR is concerned, yes they will be EXACTLY the same as the other eight stars in design, except for the actual naming of the Star, and ribbon. of course. Qualification criteria are for ANY length of service, NORTH of the Arctic Circle (66 degrees 32 minutes north) between 3.09.1939 and 8.05.1945. The Star can be awarded to Navy / Merchant Navy / Air Force / Army / Civilians and Foreign Nationals. Criteria seems simple, anyone to do with the Artic Convoys and their Escorts to North Russia, and their various forms of support and protection will qualify..........even if for only one day........ And for those who say that 70 years later is TOO LATE, then yes, I agree with you. BUT it is NOT unusual: The British Military General Service Medal was authorised in 1847, and issued in 1848 and covered some campaigns going back as far as 1793.This also applies to the Naval General Service Medal (1793-1840) issued from 1848-1849 onwards. There are in fact quite a few British examples of late issue of medals, including the Army of India Medal (1799-1826) issued only in 1851. Check Gordon's "British Battles and Medals" for more such examples. But BOTH are deserved, I believe (even if late) and will add a great deal of interest to the medal groups of those who qualify. QUESTION for you ALL: Are only family allowed to apply for the medal or the Clasp? What about cases where the medal groups are now in the hands of collectors, museums, etc ?? An interesting point for discussion, I think. (The official announcement states: Eligible veterans and next-of-kin are now encourged to apply...............) ???????????????

Excellent, thank you for that interesting snippet. I will make a note. Best regards, David B 1812 ---------------------------

Yes, Tom, I agree with you that one could / can be, say, a "Veteran" of the Vietnam War, or a Veteran of the Korean War - where these may have only involved service of a year or three. BUT in the context of my message, above, and in terms of the strict dictionary definition, I STILL do not accept that a policeman of any police force who has only three years of experience, can possibly be a "veteran"

I have a QUESTION for the FORUM, please: (Badges are not within my field of expertise......) I have been given to understand that a brass badge which I can best describe as follows: ==================================================== It is of brass. Has two rear lugs for attachment by a sliding pin. It is about 5cm wide and 3.1cm in height The form of the badge is a circular wreath, with a half-wing on each side, left and right. Surmounted by a crown, and within the circular wreath, a crossed bomb and a machine gun. Below is a ribbon on which appears: S.A.A.F. - S.A.L.M. =================================================== is a rare badge, and of possible high value ???????? Is this true? What IS the badge?? When does it date from? What is value?

Within my large medal collection, I have a few named medals which have been issued to the POLICE - merely in the collection as medal TYPE examples, and not because I collect police medals. They are: ================================================================================================== OK so nothing hugely exciting in this short list of medals to the police, except that I have two QUESTIONS, which are: What / where is M Division? and, F Division? Any other comments? Thanks, guys....... 488 Walkden, E.C. c1955 1 Special Constabulary Long Service Medal (EIIR) 517 SAP14589 1/D/Sgt Van Wyk, J.C. S.A. Police 1939-1945 1 ASM 23 537 Corpl Sinclair, R Military Foot Police 1899-1902 1 KSA - bars: SA01; SA02 289 3363 Constable M'Mugambi, L. Civil Police Forces 1952-56 Kenya 1 1902 Africa G.S.M., bar: Kenya 129 Jacobs, E.W. c1910-1936 1 Special Constabulary LS Medal (GVR) 307 P.C. Gray, F. M Division c1900-1902 1 Coronation Medal, 1902 (Police) (EVIIR) 437 Inspector Collins, T F Division c1880-1887 1 Jubilee Medal, 1887 (Police)(VR) 308 Pol.Sgt Butt, J London Met. Police c.1900 + 1 Coronation Medal, 1911(Police)(GVR) 580 Bunn, John H. Special Constabulary 1914-1918 1 Special Cons. Faithful S.M. bar Great War 14/18 GVR t.C

Whilst what I am about to describe is not really an "historic inaccuracy", and not to do with the Police in the U.K., it IS police related, and it is an INACCURATE description, in my opinion, and it IS an inaccuracy which the makers of U.S. TV and Films on the subject of the POLICE make over and over and over............. This last week, after the Boston Bombing and the aftermath, a particular policeman was injured or wounded, in one way or another (the details are not important), and the U.S. television and other reports described him as being...... "....... a three year VETERAN of the Boston police force........" I beg your pardon? Since when does being a policeman for 3 years make one a "veteran"? I have also heard of five and eight year "veterans" and so on................. what a load of crap. It is as bad as Americans saluting each other without any headwear on............... The dictionary describes a "VETERAN" as: "grown OLD in service, esp. in armed forces"; experienced by LONG practice"; And, please believe me, there is NO way that someone who has done anything for only 3 years, can be properly described as a "veteran". What do Americans then call a man who has been in the police force, or army, or whatever, for 25 or 30 years, I wonder............? I have been working for 43 years............ I wonder,............. am I a veteran yet????? Or was I a "veteran" when I was 23 years of age, and had been working for three years?? Does this mean that my motor vehicle which was made in 2010, and now gets sold in 2013, and is therefore THREE years old, can be sold and advertised as a "veteran" car.............? Hmmmmm ....???? Do Americans even KNOW the proper meaning of the word: " Veteran " ?????? ========================================================================

Very impressive and interesting group - well done..........

Yes, thank you, Graham - that is certainly a possiblility........ IF ANYBODY OUT THERE IS AN "EXPERT" on the ROYAL TANK CORPS, KINDLY CONTACT ME, please. Thank you, BW David B 1812

Yes, it is more ot less true that "modern' groups are like hen's teeth........ Here's one that recently joined my collection........ Royal Gurkha Rifles Sgt. Krishkumar Rai. And, I managed to find a PHOTO of the Rai brothers of the RGR on the web............. As I said before....... diligent research.

What is the "M" in L.C.C.M.F.B. please - for my abbreviation collection........ It is probably very obvious.................. Thanks,

Yes, P1357 - You are quite correct........... Medal research mostly (unless the recipient was your own family / friend, or a famous person) tends to end, in my experience, with the miltary career ending. That is why if you want to complete the job, you have to get into family history, or genealogy. And that can be very difficult and time consuming. BW David B 1812

A very interesting and varied group of medals. And very impressive, also. Thank you for the posting.

The Cpl. F.L. Garland Delville Wood M.M. No, not a new addition to my collection. I have had it since 2000. Just wish I could get a photo of him.......... He is also mentioned in the narrative parts of Uys's books, but no photo. There is however, a group photo of 6SAI Officers (incl. Lt Walter Hill) hanging on the walls of my Club. All the best, David B 1812 -------------------------------------------------

Dear Mervyn, I apologise if you are upset. And I apologise to any GMIC Members who I may have offended. I am quite sure that the GMIC will not get into trouble, because I have not said anything which is not true. Nor have I made any statements of libel. As you come to know me, you will find that I choose my words very carefully, and accurately, and I attempt, as far as possible, not to make a statement which I cannot prove, or back with facts. Anyway, when I write, people should read what is said carefully. And one should understand the overall trend of what is being written, and why. Quite often something is written as a precursor or introduction or foreword to something that is to follow. What I wrote originally essentially covers TWO main areas: The Battle of Isandlwana and the defeat of the Zulu nation, and the ultimate demise of what was then the Zulu kingdom. What I wrote quite clearly put the question: Did the Zulu Army defeat the British Army? We all know and accept that the small detachment of British soldiers were almost obliterated by the Zulu Army on that day. I know a fair bit about military history, and do not need to be told about Blood River, Omdurman or any other battles. They have nothing to do with the principle of this matter....... Going back to what I first wrote, and reading it carefully, you will see that I stated that FOR POLITICAL reasons, there are certain local politicians, certain local newspapers and certain sections of the local population, who, whenever Isandlwana is mentioned, then they immediately state, write or otherwise communicate that 'Yes, that was the place / battle where the Zulu defeated the British Army' - which of course is a blatant untruth, because all they did was defeat a teeny-weeny little fingertip of the mighty British Army who, I think I am correct in saying, whilst they have lost the odd battle, have never been defeated ever in a war, in all history. Had they been then we would presumably all be talking French, or German, or Spanish or whatever. These people seem to be happy to write about how the British Army was allegedly defeated by the Zulu Army, but you never see them writing about how this same Zulu Army was beaten months later, that their King was captured, and that their Kingdom thus collapsed, and ceased to exist. This is all true. Do you ever hear of the forces of the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho Red Indian tribes (about 2 000 strong) who defeated the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment (under 700 men) at the Battle of Little Bighorn, lay claim to defeating the U.S. Army? No they never did. They defeated one measly little, regiment. So, this brings me to the now vanquished Zulu Kingdom. It was annexed by Britain, became part of Natal, and then part of South Africa. There was NO KINGDOM of ZULULAND. Many years later the Nationalist Party in South Africa, in attempting to promote their separate development policy of “Apartheid”, established so-called “Homelands” or Bantustans; one of which was kwaZulu (where Mr Zwelithini was supposedly 'king') but kwaZulu never became 'independent' - it remained a self-governing territory within the province of Natal. And now we come to the point: Today, years after the 'Bantustan’ homeland of kwaZulu was disolved, we still find that there are people who talk or write about the "Kingdom" of Zululand, and about the 'King' of that territory - who today happens to be Mr Zwelithini, they claim. WE SHOULD ALL NOTE THAT SOUTH AFRICA IS A REPUBLIC; NATAL IS A PROVINCE, IT IS THEREFORE COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE EITHER A KINGDOM OR A KING. No question, no arguing. We should also note that countries who ARE ruled by either a king or a queen, are called the “KINGDOM of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, or the “Kingdom of the Netherlands?”, or the “Kingdom of Denmark”, and so on. There is NO kingdom of Natal, or of South Africa. Therefore no king. And why? Because their kingdom was defeated and destroyed by Great Britain over one hundred and thirty years ago. And now we come to Mr Zwelithini. Who seems to think that he is a 'king' operating in a REPUBLIC. At a cost to the taxpayers. Earlier, we saw a contribution by Mr Boonzaier who stated that: “There lives in London, at a huge cost to British Taxpayers (a cost of about GBP36 million per annum) a woman whose name is Elisabeth (sic). She is an unemployed British woman………….” Of course Mr Boonzaier is entitled to his opinion, but I think he will find that Queen Elizabeth II is the legitimate head of state of the Kingdom. She most certainly is not 'unemployed' and the cost of the palace to the nation is very small as compared with the tourism benefits it brings to the country and the overall size of the national budget. And, besides which, many members of the Royal Family have private means of income, which contributes to the overall cost of the system. Mr Zwelithini's expenditure is very seriously out of order, and much of it even illegitimate. The only reason he even exists (and costs taxpayers) is that the Xhosa based ANC see to it that they appease the Zulu nation, by supporting their 'king' - all for the vote of the Zulu people - thus keeping the ANC in power. And now we come to the second part of my posting. As this is a site populated by people with an interest in the military and in military history, I posed two military related questions, accompanied by some supporting photographs. Mr Boonzaier was rather unfair, I think and very uncomplimentary when, using a supporting photograph, he described a procession of Members of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, (a 665 year old order), as compared with Mr Zwelithini: “…he does not look that much more twatisch (sic) than this bunch……….. “ First of all, Sir Winston Churchill was a member of that Order, and he was voted “The GREATEST BRITON of all time” in 2002, and if it was not for him, and his leadership, we would all be speaking German, (or possibly Russian) today. But to refer to Mr Churchill's Order and Members of this Order in terms of female genitalia is, I feel, wrong. Does Mr Boonzaier also think that Field Marshal Jan Smuts also resembles female genitalia? After all, Field Marshal Smuts was awarded two extremely high Orders of Great Britain – The Order of Merit, and the Companions of Honour. There are two photos of Mr Zwelithini wearing a military uniform and one of him wearing leopard skins (which by the way are a CITES protected species, but we won't get started on that subject). And my questions, quite simply were: Could any GMIC members identify the uniforms worn? Which army does Mr Zwelithini command? Does anyone have any idea what medals he is wearing? What were they issued for? What do they represent? Does anyone have a close-up of them? Will they be listed in the Medal Yearbook? And, in response to Paul Wood, the area of kwaZulu does not have any awards of their own, to the best of my knowledge. So that does not explain who/where/when/what awarded these medals to Mr Zwelithini........... And to answer Mr Monahan who stated: “What the present King od the Zulu says, does or wears is no more relevant.......” Again he is welcome to his opinion. I say that as a consequence of the little blip to the British at Isandlawana, and the subsequent final defeat of the Zulu nation at Ulundi, followed by the British annexation of Zululand, (now part of a REBUBLIC), there CANNOT be a KINGDOM, and there cannot be a KING. Therefore IT IS relevant what Mr Zwelithini says and does. Especially to me as a taxpayer. After all it is no different from someone running about in Germany, calling himself the successor to Mr Adolf Hitler and therefore Chancellor of the Third Reich. Or a woman making it known in Russia that she was Empress of Russia, and all that flows from that statement. We need to see these things in CONTEXT. Of COURSE these people would be attacked and ridiculed, because the positions they claim (in my imaginary examples) are IMPOSSIBLE today with things standing as they do, historically, and in terms of accepted international constitutional law. Imagine if someone in Germany stated publically that he was the legitimate Chancellor of the Third Reich, and Angela Merkel allowed the German government to pay this man many tens of millions of Euro very year, and have the German Army even salute and protect him. Would that be OK? Yes, I think that would be fine…………………… So why is Mr Zwelitini any different? His position too, is IMPOSSIBLE, no matter what he or the ANC may think. That is my opinion, and I am sticking to it. In LAW, it is a correct position. The problem in South Africa is that the ANC very often see themselves as being above the law. And they even change laws as they need, to suit themselves. However, if raising interesting matters like this causes consternation, then I will refrain from doing so in future. And I apologise to the group. I will stick to mundane and dull things like medal research, old documents, badges, weapons and so on. All the best, David B 1812

Thank you for your very kind words, Peter, Ulsterman and IrishGunner. It is nice when one can complete this sort of work, to a successful ending. But as I am sure you know, yourselves, not every research project has a full, or complete ending. I think also, that a fair degree of luck is involved. Thanks again, With best wishes, David B 1812 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The medal in question is correctly named: The Air Force Cross - there are FOUR crosses, for the four different arms of the forces at that time. All were identical silver crosses but each had a different central roundel- depicting the badge of the appropriate service: Army; Air Force; Navy or Medical Service. Also, the ribbon changes, as the different arm of the military changes.The army ribbon is red and white. The air force is light blue (with a thin central yellow line) and white; the navy is dark blue, and the medical service is purple / maroon. Both the cross and the girl are very attractive..........

I just LOVE to stir the "pot" sometimes and to be controversial.......... Especially when people take the FACTS and the TRUTH and use them for their own gains, or try to make us believe that the position is somehow DIFFERENT from what the actual facts are, and how things actually have been PROVEN to have happened in history. ================================================== What do I mean by this? Well the first issue is that if one is a South African, and especially if one lives in Durban or indeed, in the province of Natal (we all have heard of Natal - also known as: "The Last Outpost of the British Empire"), then we will know that every time there is an anniversary to do with the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879, or one of the battles, especially that of the famous Battle of Isandlwana, then we read in the local press, and we hear - most especially from local black politicians about how............ The British army was defeated by the Zulu Army......... using of course the British defeat at Isandlwana (22 January 1879) by a large Zulu army. What upsets me, every time I hear the claim that the BRITISH ARMY was defeated by the ZULU ARMY at Isandlwana, this is a huge distortion of the facts, and a bending of the truth. A "twisting of history" by some, if you like. Yes, the 20,000 men strong Zulu army of the day, did defeat a very tiny part of the British army. I won't go into the details and history of the British and Isandlwana here, but everyone (or most of us) know that the "British Army" at Isandlwana was in fact composed of a few companies of the 24th Regiment of Foot, (about 700 or so fighting men) plus around another 700 men of doubtful fighting ability - that is about 200 irregular Colonials and about 500 of the Natal Native Contingent, all supported by two guns, and various camp-followers and other assorted odds and sods. And so OF COURSE it was relatively easy for these 20,000 screaming savages to over-run the unexpecting makeshift British camp. Although it is said that only about half of the Zulu army was used in the Battle. Of the remaining men, about 5 000 were kept in reserve, and about 5 000 were sent on to attack Rorke's Drift, not far away, where a very small British garrison of about 150 men and a few hundred locals held off an attacking Zulu force of, perhaps, 4 000 or so men, until re-enforcements arrived. We all know the story. But was the British ARMY defeated that day? Some tihnk so. Many local newspaper reporters say so from time to time. Many local Zulu politicians believe so. Even a website called: "BritishBattles.com" believe so, as they clearly state on their website- Isandlwana, the battle that rocked Victorian Britain; at which the Zulus wiped out a substantial British force including the 1st Battalion, 24th Foot. Winner: The British force was wiped out by the Zulu Army. Was the Britsh force a "SUBSTANTIAL" one, as they claim? Of course it was not. Was the British ARMY defeated by the Zulu Army that day??? OF COURSE NOT. The so-called "defeated" British Army was just a few hundred men. What would have happened if the Zulu Army HAD fought in a battle against the British ARMY. Based on the number of Regiments which the British had, under the 1880 (numbered) Regiments of Foot, there were around 110 Regiments. If we accept that the average regiment had/has about 800 men, sometimes more, then there were about 90,000 men in the "Foot". Now add the Regiments of Guards, the Cavalry, the Lancers, The Hussars, the Artillery; the Engineers and other support units, and then of course the entire Royal Navy - who controlled the seas of the whole world in those days, and we will find that Britain could easily have put together an army of, perhaps, 150,000 men and guns together. NOW, did the Zulu Army defeat the British Army???? Of course NOT. And these same people who think that the Zulu Army beat the British Army, are very quick to forget about how the few defenders at Rorke's Drift held off many thousands of screaming Zulus later on the same day. Or they conveniently forget how the Zulu Army was defeated six months later, by the British, at the Battle of Ulundi, following which the Zulu King was captured. Eventually, Zululand was taken over by the British, and incorporated into Natal. And Natal was incorporated into South Africa. And so, Natal is a PROVINCE. South Africa is a REPUBLIC. THIS BRINGS ME TO ANOTHER STRANGE RESULT OF THE BATTLE ISANDLWANA and the eventual DEFEAT OF THE ZULU KING, and the former Kingdom of Zululand being incorporated into Natal, and then, later, into the Republic of South Africa. There lives in northern Natal, at a huge cost to Natal Taxpayers (a cost of about U.S.$ TEN million per annum) a fellow whose name is Goodwill Zwelithini. He is an unemployed Zulu man. He has managed to convince quite a few people, including the local African National Congress (ANC) people who are politically in control of the Natal Provincial Government coffers at the moment, that he is actually King Zwelithini of the Zulu, and that the residents of Natal should pay for his "kingdom" expenses. This means his various wives, children, family, hangers-on, household, "palaces"; transport and everything else besides. Question: HOW CAN YOU HAVE a 'king' in a PROVINCE which is in turn, part of a country which is a REPUBLIC.................?????? Answer: Under international constitutional law, YOU CANNOT. But this Zwelithini fellow, and most of the local ANC politicians, and the press, all like to think that he is a king. He even believes it. He even wears a sort of "military uniform" with all sorts of accessories, meant to make him appear as some sort of "Military / National Leader" - a bit like a Mickey Mouse version of Field Marshal Idi Amin. Zwelithini even goes so far as to wear a chest full of medals. It appears not to bother him that this bunch of very plastic looking medals are ALL THE SAME, WITH THE SAME RIBBONS on EVERY MEDAL. (See pictures attached). I am sorry to say, but this is all a sad joke, as far as I am concerned. Question: Can anyone please identify the uniform worn by Mr Zwelithini, and what rank does he hold, and what army does he belong to......? Secondly: Can those of you who are experts in identifying medals, please tell me what the medals are, that Mr Zwelithini is wearing, please. (I may be wrong, but it appears to me that he got them in a lucky packet......) Thanks guys, All the best, David B 1812 In the Last Outpost of the British Empire ======================================

DAMN.......... I have not mastered this system, yet....... it enters and posts, when I don't yet want it to........................ Here id the FULL POSTING, as it is supposed to be and look: (in fact, if we have an 'editior' please remove this note, and the 'half' entry, above........ ======================================================= Dear Peter, and Paul (and anyone else who may be able to assist), Thank you for offering to help. I hope that you can. Here are the details: ======================================================= I have a 1914 - 1918 trio to Capt. S.C.W. Cruickshank, 8 R. Scots His medal index card shows him with two different numbers, for "8 R Scots" They are : 7423 and 335090. The number 7423 appears on the rear of his Star. The BWM and the AVM both show him as an officer, therefore, no numbers. His medal index card show him as a 2/Lt Tank Corps. The actual medals are engraved as follows: 1914 Star : 7423 Pte. S.C.W. Cruickshank 8/R.Scots BWM: Capt S.C.W. Cruickshank AVM: Capt S.C.W. Cruickshank There is no "Mons" Bar on the 1914 Star. This because, I am reliably informed by another correspondent of mine, Cruickshank was with the 8th Battalion, Royal Scots, who were a Territorial Force battalion, at the time, and that they arrived in France (as the first Scottish battalion to do so) on 5 November, joining the 22nd Brigade of the 7th Division on 11 November. That they did not qualify for the "Mons" bar (5 Aug - 22 Nov) was very probably because they only saw action much later, that is only on 10 to 13 March 1915 at the Battle of Neuve Chapelle. I am also advised that the PRO (N.A. if you like) has only one file for a officer with the name S. Cruickshank, and it is WO339/88806, but I have not seen it myself, nor do I have any knowledge of the file contents. What I DO know are the following entries in the LONDON GAZETTE: L.G. # 30593 (Suppl) 23 March 1918, pg 3698 : Under a sub-heading: TANK CORPS - The undermentioned temp. 2nd Lts to be temp 2nd Lts. :- S.C.W. Cruickshank, from a Serv. Bn,. R.Scots. 31 Dec 1917, with seniority 30 May 1917 L.G. 31056 (Suppl) 9 December 1918, pg 14550: Under a sub-heading: TANK CORPS - The undermentioned to be actg. Capts. while comdg. Sects.:- Temp. 2nd Lt. S.C.W. Cruickshank. 4 Oct. 1918 L.G. 31306 (Suppl) 29 April 1919, pg 5170: Under a sub-heading: TANK CORPS - The undermentioned temp. 2nd Lts. to be actg. Capts. while comdg. Sects.:- S.C.W. Cruickshank (now temp. Lt.). 31 Oct. 1918 And, finally, L.G. 31832 (Suppl) 22 March, 1920, pg 3524 again, under TANK CORPS: Temp. Lt. S.C.W. Cruickshank relinquishes the actg. rank of Capt. on ceasing to comd. a Sect. 1 Apr. 1919 So we know that Cruickshank started military life out as a private in the Territorial Army with the 8th Battalion. Royal Scots, 1914. He arrived in France in November 1914, but only saw action in March 1915 at the Battle of Neuve Chapelle. We now jump to May 1917 where Cruickshank (apparently already a T/2nd Lt. with the Royal Scots ??? Why no L.G. entry?) becomes an T/2nd Lt in the TANK CORPS. Later, still in the TANK CORPS, he becomes an A/Capt. Capt. Cruickshank (from his medal index card) seems to only have the three medals already mentioned. No others, and no MID, so far as I can tell. Interestingly, there is an additional note on his medal index card, which reads: * Comm 2/Scot Rifles (But I have no idea what this means....???) Anyway: WHAT ELSE CAN WE FIND OUT ABOUT CAPT. CRUICKSHANK ??? What did he do in the Tank Corps? Where did he see action? Does anyone have ANY other details about this Officer. A photo even? Anything will be helpful, please, to add to what we know, above. Thank you, Al, the best, David B 1812 =========================================================== (Post removed as requested - any mistakes ask and we can change or, remove. Mervyn )

Royal Tank Corps 1917 - 1918 Any experts on this Corps who can help me with a question, please. If so, I will post details. Thanks, David B 1812

DOING PROPER MILITARY HISTORY RESEARCH: Here is an example of how you can get a great deal from very little. Doing good research is, or can be a bit like criminal forensic investigation, and in-depth, careful and diligent research can often bring a good result. ========================================================= So, more than twenty years ago, I found an old Kodak Brownie photograph in a box of other photos at a dealer's stall at a Durban flea market. It was just a simple 10.7cm X 6.8cm black and white photo, and not of great quality either. If one examines it closely, it is of what appears to be a fresh, flower- covered military grave, with a hand-made white cross stuck into the mound of fresh earth. (See attached photo) If you look closely at the cross, it reads: Cpl. P.W. Renou, 8 Field Sqdn, S.A.E.C. with below that, a date, partially obscured. So, that is all one has. That is the starting point. Who was Cpl Renou? Where did he die? When did he die? What did he do? What can we find out about this man? So first we get his military papers from the Defence Archives in Pretoria. We find that he was: 189597V Cpl. Percy William RENOU, 8 Field Squadron, South African Engineer Corps. He died of wounds in Italy, 27 June 1944. He enlisted in June 1940. He was married in July 1943. His records show that his medal entitlement (issued in 1951) was: 1939-1945 Star; Africa Star; Italy Star; 1939-45 Defence Medal; 1939-45 War Medal and the Africa Service Medal. In addition, Cpl Renou was MENTIONED in DESPATCHES in March 1942. And apart from the usual technical details of Cpl Renou's training, transfers, promotions, as so on, there is not much more to tell. But I was not finished. Off to my library. And, sure enough, the index of "Salute to the Sappers" by Orpen and Martin, has a entry for Cpl Renou, on page 139, Chapter 11 of S.A. Forces in WWII, Part 2. And here is what it says: "SETBACK AT CHIUSI - ITALY, JUNE 1944" The South Africans managed to clear a way through the drab and narrow streets (of Chiusi), only to be held up beyond the outskirts by enemy fire. Once again the Germans were hitting back and the Sappers (Engineers) had to bear much of the brunt. Both L/Cpl. P. Kelly and Spr. H.H. Dittman were slightly wounded by mortar bombs, but with a section sent off to join an unsuccessful effort at a left hook, work continued after dark to open up a road to Acquaviva. On 27 June the squadron suffered a further loss when Spr. A. Blair was wounded by an “S” mine. Within five minutes, Spr. A.E. Meiring was killed by another and Cpl. P.W. Renou was mortally wounded in going to Meiring’s assistance. No other South African Sapper units in the whole of Italy were so severely cut up by enemy action. (And NOW here is the INTERESTING BIT...................................) For years, Cpl Renou had longed to visit Assisi, some 60km almost due east of Chiusi, and on moving to Italy (from the north African desert campaign), he had written to his wife to tell her that at last his ambition might be realised. On the very eve of his death he had written home to say that he was on his way to Assisi, little knowing how true his words were to prove. To the amazement of his widow, years later, she was informed that because 13 graves at Chiusi were placed too close to the main road, 11 of them were being moved to the main War Cemetery at Castiglione (where many South Africans who were killed in Italy were buried) – but that those of Cpl. Renou and Spr. Meiring were being moved to Assisi, thus fulfilling a Sapper’s ambition long after he had lost his life in trying to help a friend. And so, in this very sad way, Cpl. Renou did get to Assisi. (See attached photo) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Note : Chiusi is a small Italian town, roughly midway between Rome and Florence). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And SO, all that information (and much more besides), resulted from finding one, little Kodak World War II black and white photograph. Isn't research great !!!!! ???? David B 1812 April 2013 ================================================================

No, it does not. It is as it is, unfortunately. Sorry. May not have been a ship. May have been a land-based naval signal for all we know. I am not a naval expert, so I can't really help. I'm afraid. David B 1812